289 replies to this topic

[JubilantLankyLad]

TIL that if things are unfair they are gray.

[timwakefield]

TIL that 'TIL' stands for 'Today I Learned.'

[AmScray]

SilentSnow, on Thursday, June 2nd, 2011, 2:40 PM, said:

Is there any moral difference between a genetic lottery supported through unjust governments and a bank error lottery?

Yes, absolutely, there is. A lot (most?) Western morality an be traced back to precepts of consequentialism, whereas "the genetic lottery" is a function of chance, outside our control or influence. Awful analogy. With that said, if the bank gave me a free twenty grand, I'd take it and tell them to piss off not because of any moral footing inherent to said position, but because fuck it, I want the money, don't care about the well being of banks and don't fear the consequences for doing that. After the first felony, there is a kind of liberation that hopefully, none of you will ever come to understand.

[SilentSnow]

AmScray, on Thursday, June 2nd, 2011, 9:21 PM, said:

Yes, absolutely, there is. A lot (most?) Western morality an be traced back to precepts of consequentialism, whereas "the genetic lottery" is a function of chance, outside our control or influence. Awful analogy.

I don't think you explained why the analogy doesn't work. Obviously the bank error lottery is also completely a function of chance. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference other than one is socially acceptable to benefit from and the other not. That they occur at different points in life shouldn't matter at all. Why is it acceptable for people to steal from others through a wildly unjust distribution of resources, but unacceptable for someone to benefit from a banks' random distribution? The answer of course is that in an ideal society neither should be acceptable, but that is not what most people believe. I am curious to see if they can come up with any convincing explanation for their beliefs. A moral society has to have a rational basis for their laws. The rational basis should be that society treats people justly. If they do, then that society has a moral claim on its citizens. If they do not then that claim is revoked and things become simply an amoral/immoral power struggle. No one expects you to act morally towards someone who has acted immorally towards you. At least a proportionate response is universally justified(despite the "turn the other cheek" bible verses that Christians completely ignore). So why should your response be any different to society than that of an individual? The practical reason is probably that people instinctively realize how many people are getting screwed over and don't want to give them any encouragement to correct the injustices that they themselves might benefit from. But that is not a moral reason.

[brvheart]

SilentSnow, on Thursday, June 2nd, 2011, 5:40 PM, said:

Let's suppose this happened to you. Would you take the money and start a new life for 6 million dollars? Assume that you are able to withdraw the money and leave the country without getting caught. I don't know, but it seems reasonably possible to get a fake identity and launder the money. As for the moral issue, I think it is fairly gray. You aren't stealing from an individual. Society unfairly rewards people all the time. Why shouldn't you be one of those people? Is there any moral difference between a genetic lottery supported through unjust governments and a bank error lottery?

You make Stalin look like Rush Limbaugh.

[SilentSnow]

brvheart, on Thursday, June 2nd, 2011, 9:15 PM, said:

You make Stalin look like Rush Limbaugh.

Some of you guys really are pathetic. Would it kill you to try to answer a question rationally for once in your life?

[vbnautilus]

SilentSnow, on Thursday, June 2nd, 2011, 10:42 PM, said:

You guys really are pathetic. Would it kill you to try to answer a question rationally for once in your life?

Actually it would probably devastating for him to accept rationality. Do you really want to be responsible for what happens when his entire worldview starts to crumble around him, leaving not a shred of solid psychological ground for him to stand on? That said, your posts in this thread have been quite ridiculous and probably don't deserve a serious response. You're not even really making a coherent point. I should probably just wait until Spademan shows up and tears you a new one, but what the heck, let's look back at your original abomination of a post:

Quote

As for the moral issue, I think it is fairly gray. You aren't stealing from an individual. Society unfairly rewards people all the time. Why shouldn't you be one of those people?

First, stealing from a group of individuals is not morally superior to stealing from a single individual. The second part of this is really bizarre: you seem to be trying to justify taking the money by saying other unfair things happen. Well if this is like those other things, which in your description are unfair, isn't this also unfair? An immoral act does not become moral in the presence of other immoral acts.

Quote

Is there any moral difference between a genetic lottery supported through unjust governments and a bank error lottery?

What? A "genetic lottery supported through unjust governments"? What are you even talking about?

SilentSnow, on Thursday, June 2nd, 2011, 9:59 PM, said:

Obviously the bank error lottery is also completely a function of chance. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference other than one is socially acceptable and the other not. That they occur at different points in life shouldn't matter at all.

The bank error is not the moral act in question. Returning or keeping the money is the choice. Choices are the only things that are subject to moral evaluation. What choice is it exactly that you think is equivalent to keeping the money that the bank error gave you, keeping money that your rich parents gave you? You think the moral choice in that case is to return the money to your parents? You're totally confusing some idea of "fairness" with morality.

Quote

Why is it acceptable for people to steal from others through a wildly unjust distribution of resources

How do people steal from others "though unjust distribution of resources"? What kind of stealing do you think people find acceptable?

Quote

Society has to have a rational basis for their laws. The rational basis is that society treats people justly. If they do, then that society has a moral claim on its citizens. If they do not then that claim is revoked and things become simply an amoral/immoral power struggle. No one expects you to act morally towards someone who has acted immorally towards you. At least a proportionate response is universally justified(despite the "turn the other cheek" bible verses that Christians completely ignore). So why should your response be any different to society than that of an individual?

This is really complete gibberish. But it seems that you are now saying that stealing from a bank is OK, because society has wronged you somehow by making you poor. Wonderful.

[El Guapo]

I think silent snow just turned VB into a conservative.

[SilentSnow]

vbnautilus, on Thursday, June 2nd, 2011, 10:40 PM, said:

1.First, stealing from a group of individuals is not morally superior to stealing from a single individual. 2.The second part of this is really bizarre: you seem to be trying to justify taking the money by saying other unfair things happen. Well if this is like those other things, which in your description are unfair, isn't this also unfair? An immoral act does not become moral in the presence of other immoral acts. 3.What? A "genetic lottery supported through unjust governments"? What are you even talking about? 4.The bank error is not the moral act in question. Returning or keeping the money is the choice. Choices are the only things that are subject to moral evaluation. What choice is it exactly that you think is equivalent to keeping the money that the bank error gave you, keeping money that your rich parents gave you? You think the moral choice in that case is to return the money to your parents? You're totally confusing some idea of "fairness" with morality. 5.How do people steal from others "though unjust distribution of resources"? What kind of stealing do you think people find acceptable? 6.This is really complete gibberish. But it seems that you are now saying that stealing from a bank is OK, because society has wronged you somehow by making you poor. Wonderful.

This probably isn't going to be a productive discussion- ethical issues tend to make political discussions seem positively rational. But just for fun I'll try to answer your questions. 1.I wouldn't use the term morally superior, but on a practical level it is less bad since it tends to be much less damaging. 2.Well an immoral(negative?) act can potentially be moral if you are trying to correct the first immoral act. I already said that both acts were immoral. But the real point of my argument is that I want someone to give me a reason why most people accept one act but not the other. As for the grey area, if you live in a society where theft is legal can that society really expect you not to steal from it? If you believe that moral codes are set by society then I think the answer is no. If you believe in another code then the answer might be different. 3.I'm talking about the fact that our society supports wildly unfair distributions of wealth at birth or inheritance. Those people did nothing to earn that money just like you did nothing to earn the bank error. Why is one stealing and the other not? 4.The moral choice would be to return it to those who were hurt by the unfair distribution, not your parents. Any morality that can ignore fairness is not a true morality. 5.Any time you take something you didn't earn you are in effect stealing. People who are born wealthy/inherit wealth later are taking far more than their fair share of resources and did not earn them. In an ideal society everyone would be born with an equal opportunity which includes a fair initial share of resources. In that society "all men are created equal" would be more than just a sick joke. In practice it is impossible to actually create a fair system but we should at least make an attempt to correct the worst extremes. I realize this might sound weird since our society is based on supporting injustice. 6.No. I am saying it is not ok. But under our current system there isn't a good reason not to steal from the bank. The solution is to fix society, not encourage stealing from banks.

[ShakeZuma]

JubilantLankyLad, on Thursday, June 2nd, 2011, 10:55 PM, said:

TIL that if things are unfair they are gray.

timwakefield, on Thursday, June 2nd, 2011, 11:05 PM, said:

TIL that 'TIL' stands for 'Today I Learned.'

see, this is why it just infuriates me when people make a thread or a post or something, or even in real life when people ask what something means or stands for or whatever... I read TIL, immediately highlighted, right clicked, googled, and learned the answer to what it stood for BEFORE I EVEN MADE IT TO THE NEXT POST. that's how easy it was! I mean, google is right there people, jesus christ.also, ouch: come on man, don't do that

El Guapo, on Friday, June 3rd, 2011, 3:18 AM, said:

I think silent snow just turned VB into a conservative.

haha

[timwakefield]

ShakeZuma, on Friday, June 3rd, 2011, 6:00 AM, said:

I read TIL, immediately highlighted, right clicked, googled, and learned the answer to what it stood for

***Edited to include visual. You're the sexy girl, because I just called it.

[mrdannyg]

so where are we on the free calendar?

[LongLiveYorke]

mrdannyg, on Friday, June 3rd, 2011, 7:46 AM, said:

so where are we on the free calendar?

Free calendars are simply a way for our capitalist oppressors to hold the blinders over our eyes and to ensure that we keep propping up a false government supported by a genetic elite. I know that now.

[vbnautilus]

SilentSnow, on Friday, June 3rd, 2011, 2:20 AM, said:

1.I wouldn't use the term morally superior, but on a practical level it is less bad since it tends to be much less damaging.

Why would it be less damaging to steal from more people? Having more victims does not make a crime better. This is very weak.

Quote

2.Well an immoral(negative?) act can potentially be moral if you are trying to correct the first immoral act. I already said that both acts were immoral. But the real point of my argument is that I want someone to give me a reason why most people accept one act but not the other. As for the grey area, if you live in a society where theft is legal can that society really expect you not to steal from it? If you believe that moral codes are set by society then I think the answer is no. If you believe in another code then the answer might be different.

I don't even know what two acts we are comparing. You've vaguely referred to some general crime committed by the banks, but I don't know what you're talking about.

Quote

3.I'm talking about the fact that our society supports wildly unfair distributions of wealth at birth or inheritance. Those people did nothing to earn that money just like you did nothing to earn the bank error. Why is one stealing and the other not?

I don't believe that you can't see the difference. Either 1) you're really not thinking before you type 2) you're so committed to making some point that you don't care whether you make sense or 3) you have lost a different kind of genetic lottery.Stealing is taking something from someone against their will. Inheritance does not qualify. ( Are you seriously a communist? )

Quote

4.The moral choice would be to return it to those who were hurt by the unfair distribution, not your parents. Any morality that can ignore fairness is not a true morality.

And if you force people to do that, that isn't stealing? You seem to be working from the idea that it is morally wrong for one person to have more than another. I don't think anyone is going to share that assumption with you.

Quote

5.Any time you take something you didn't earn you are in effect stealing.

No. Everyone note not to give Silent Snow a birthday present this year, since he doesn't want to steal from us.

Quote

People who are born wealthy/inherit wealth later are taking far more than their fair share of resources and did not earn them.

See, I thought you were making some moral/ethical argument, but you're really just pushing some political ideology? I didn't initially realize what you were up to since I don't usually read your posts. A system where equal wealth distribution is forced does not maximize human well-being. It is therefore immoral to implement such a system.

Quote

In an ideal society everyone would be born with an equal opportunity which includes a fair initial share of resources.

Yeah, let's be real careful that no one ends up taller than anyone else or with better musical talent or sharper vision. NOT FAIR!

Quote

In that society "all men are created equal" would be more than just a sick joke. In practice it is impossible to actually create a fair system but we should at least make an attempt to correct the worst extremes. I realize this might sound weird since our society is based on supporting injustice.

It doesn't sound weird, it just sounds stupid.

Quote

6.No. I am saying it is not ok. But under our current system there isn't a good reason not to steal from the bank. The solution is to fix society, not encourage stealing from banks.

There isn't a good reason not to steal from the bank....? Let's do this real slowly. It's illegal to take the bank's property. The law says that if I give you something that's mine -- by accident -- you should give it back, because accidents don't transfer ownership. Now surely some laws are unjust and not worth following because some ethical principle supersedes them. Is this an unjust law worth breaking on ethical grounds? Seems to me like a pretty reasonable law. If we are to follow your "reasoning", then since life is unfair and wealth is not evenly distributed, we should all just take whatever we want, whenever we want to. Is that what you do?

[Mercury69]

brvheart, on Friday, June 3rd, 2011, 1:15 AM, said:

You make Stalin look like Rush Limbaugh.

A $1 bank error is a tragedy; a $6m bank error is a statistic.

[digitalmonkey]

vbnautilus, on Friday, June 3rd, 2011, 9:02 AM, said:

If we are to follow your "reasoning", then since life is unfair and wealth is not evenly distributed, we should all just take whatever we want, whenever we want to. Is that what you do?

I don't think anyone said this. I also don't think he claimed his reasoning was universal and applied to all scenarios. I'm sure there are scenarios where your reasoning would be ridiculous.Also:SS said, "Any time you take something you didn't earn you are in effect stealing."You responded, "No. Everyone note not to give Silent Snow a birthday present this year, since he doesn't want to steal from us."I'm not arguing for or against SS's comment, but your response seems to indicate a lack of understanding between "give" and "take".

[vbnautilus]

digitalmonkey, on Friday, June 3rd, 2011, 8:08 AM, said:

I don't think anyone said this. I also don't think he claimed his reasoning was universal and applied to all scenarios.

Then its up to him to specify exactly how his approval of stealing is limited. He is justifying stealing from a bank because he is unsatisfied with the current distribution of wealth. Why would that be a justification for one instance of stealing and not another? edit: The form of my argument here is reductio ad absurdum. If we take the principle he has advocated seriously, it leads to positions that are untenable.

Quote

I'm sure there are scenarios where your reasoning would be ridiculous.

If you want to make the same argument against me, you have to show how my reasoning leads to absurd conclusions. You can't just say "yours probably does too".

[mrdannyg]

digitalmonkey, on Friday, June 3rd, 2011, 12:08 PM, said:

Also:SS said, "Any time you take something you didn't earn you are in effect stealing."You responded, "No. Everyone note not to give Silent Snow a birthday present this year, since he doesn't want to steal from us."I'm not arguing for or against SS's comment, but your response seems to indicate a lack of understanding between "give" and "take".

Nope. SS uses the word "take" but since he is discussing inheritance, it is clear a better word would be "accept."VB's analogy is fine - the person inheriting is not 'taking', they are being given, by their dead benefactor's estate. If their acceptance is theft, then so would SS's acceptance of a birthday present, or for that matter, anyone being paid a wage that is greater than their contribution. By that logic, the fact that I am currently being paid to make this argument (which is of no benefit to my employer) is stealing.I guess that last one does kind of make sense.

[vbnautilus]

mrdannyg, on Friday, June 3rd, 2011, 8:35 AM, said:

Nope. SS uses the word "take" but since he is discussing inheritance, it is clear a better word would be "accept."VB's analogy is fine - the person inheriting is not 'taking', they are being given, by their dead benefactor's estate. If their acceptance is theft, then so would SS's acceptance of a birthday present, or for that matter, anyone being paid a wage that is greater than their contribution. By that logic, the fact that I am currently being paid to make this argument (which is of no benefit to my employer) is stealing.I guess that last one does kind of make sense.

Not to mention that the privilege of being born into a rich family comes long before inheritance. Are wealthy parents not supposed to give their kids money while they are alive? They probably shouldn't let their kids live in their nice houses either. I guess everyone who is born should live in an identical government built house and they can just visit their parents every once in a while. You know, just to make sure there are no government-supported genetic advantages.

[JubilantLankyLad]

ShakeZuma, on Friday, June 3rd, 2011, 3:00 AM, said:

also, ouch: come on man, don't do that

just wanting to make sure you get a chance to be the sexy girl. i'm all about you, baby.